Nikkor AF-S 105 Micro VR vs Tamron SP 90 f/2.8 Di Micro

If you would like to post, you'll need to register. Note that if you have a BCG store account, you'll need a new, separate account here (we keep the two sites separate for security purposes).

Mr. Goodkat

Mr. Goodkat

Active member
Member's gallery
I'm looking for my first macro lens and kind of like shooting a little bit of everything with my lenses. I enjoy product shots, flowers, bugs, etc. It will be mounted on a D7500 and I'm looking to shoot both free hand and with a tripod.

Do any of you have experience with both not necessarily on D7500? I've read that the Nikon might be better with low light but both Nikon and Canon supporters seem to love the Tamron 90 over the Nikon and Canon competitors.

I'm looking at a used example of the Nikkor for the same price as a new SP 90 and will be trading my 18-140 towards the macro.

Thanks!
 
Member's gallery
I've got a Tamron SP 90. Its OK for the money but I would expect the Nikon to be better.
Here are some examples.
39976368833_0fc5f11d70_o.jpg
You can only see EXIF info for this image if you are logged in.

46216269784_c74dba6384_h.jpg
You can only see EXIF info for this image if you are logged in.

46940830901_82986aaca4_o.jpg
You can only see EXIF info for this image if you are logged in.
 
Member's gallery
The Nikon 105 VR is a really nice lens, but with only a few exceptions any of the macro lenses out today are outstanding. When shooting at macro distances they all struggle in low light, just the nature of the type of shooting. Additional lighting, or a flash with a focus assistance beam is almost a must for that.

If you already have a Nikon 1.4x TC you can use it with the 105mm VR, the Tamron will not mount on Nikon TCs.


One of the last shots I took with the D810+ 105 VR before upgrading to the D850. You might not get the resolution with a D7500, but you don't have to worry about getting the image quality you are looking for.

RD8_2187_1-M.jpg
 
Last edited:
Member's gallery
Nice pics Bardot and thanks for the input!

JANuser: I don't have a TC and don't plan on getting one at this time but thanks for the mention. For extra light I just recently got a Litra Torch 2.0 and a Godox TT685N with remote trigger. If there's one statement I read consistently it's that most macro lenses are very good.

I may not get the resolution of a full frame as you mention but I have to say I'm very happy with my D7500. It's my first nice camera, my first DSLR and I can see myself sticking with for a long time as mirrorless systems progress.
 
Last edited:
Member's gallery
Mr. Goodkat said:
I'm looking for my first macro lens and kind of like shooting a little bit of everything with my lenses. I enjoy product shots, flowers, bugs, etc. It will be mounted on a D7500 and I'm looking to shoot both free hand and with a tripod.

Do any of you have experience with both not necessarily on D7500? I've read that the Nikon might be better with low light but both Nikon and Canon supporters seem to love the Tamron 90 over the Nikon and Canon competitors.

I'm looking at a used example of the Nikkor for the same price as a new SP 90 and will be trading my 18-140 towards the macro.

Thanks!
Click to expand...

As a Nikon and Fuji user I bought a Tokina 100mm f2.8 macro and loved it. I only got rid of it as it would not do camera controlled focus stacking with my D850 as it did not have a focus motor in the lens. It was so small and light - and cheap! No stabilisation but for macro use I only used it on a tripod for macro so could see no need for it. For normal hand held use 100mm is not an issue with no stablisation for my useage.

I swapped it for a Sigma 105 macro which works well but is twice the size and weight of the Tokina and the guy I sold the Tokina to is delighted with it.
 
Last edited:
Member's gallery
dabhand16 said:
As a Nikon and Fuji user I bought a Tonika 100mm f2.8 macro and loved it. I only got rid of it as it would not do camera controlled focus stacking with my D850 as it did not have a focus motor in the lens. It was so small and light - and cheap! No stabilisation but for macro use I only used it on a tripod for macro so could see no need for it. For normal hand held use 100mm is not an issue with no stablisation for my useage.

I swapped it for a Sigma 105 macro which works well but is twice the size and weight of the Tokina and the guy I sold the Tokina to is delighted with it.
Click to expand...

I have a Tokina wide angle and it's been a very nice lens when I use it. That said I think some sort of VR is on my must have list. I've really enjoy that feature on my 16-80 and 70-300 and would like to have it on the macro too.
 
Last edited:
Member's gallery
Mr. Goodkat said:
I'm looking for my first macro lens and kind of like shooting a little bit of everything with my lenses. I enjoy product shots, flowers, bugs, etc. It will be mounted on a D7500 and I'm looking to shoot both free hand and with a tripod.

Do any of you have experience with both not necessarily on D7500? I've read that the Nikon might be better with low light but both Nikon and Canon supporters seem to love the Tamron 90 over the Nikon and Canon competitors.

I'm looking at a used example of the Nikkor for the same price as a new SP 90 and will be trading my 18-140 towards the macro.

Thanks!
Click to expand...

Nikon's 105 macro lenses have a long history of excellent optics and high quality construction. You can't go wrong. Build quality is excellent - the Nikon 105 is built like a tank. The 1.4 teleconverters work very well with the Nikon macro, and that is helpful for increased magnification or more space for jumpy subjects like butterflies, dragonflies and spiders. The TC14E III does have a limitation on AF with the 105, so be sure to check specifics or get the TC14E II version.

105mm is a good all purpose focal length. The Tamron 90 is close enough. All macro lenses (almost) have the same maximum magnification - 1:1. The difference is magnification and working distance at less than 1:1. Optically all the top brands are very good.

AF speed on the Nikon 105 is relatively slow, but that's okay because most macro images don't need fast AF. I hate using it for portraits because of slow AF. Older versions - even manual focus lenses - are still useful because there is lots of manual focus work for macro.

The Nikon 105 works very nicely with the Z cameras and FTZ adapter.

If you can get the Nikon near the price of the Tamron, I'd go that route.
 
Member's gallery
I've used a Tamron 90mm on a D7200 and now on a D7500. I think it's a fine lens (it's the version just before the most recent version). I've seen reviews that state the Nikon 105mm Micro is a good lens, but not great, at least not any better than others of similar focal length. You may need to focus tune the Tamron, but test it out first.
 
Last edited:
Member's gallery
I had both lenses--I actually felt the Tamron gave consistently better results than the Nikkor; that was my experience. Got rid of the Tamron (to my continuing regret) because it would not autofocus with the Z6. Tamron had to do a firmware update to make it compatible with the FTZ adaptor and they were dragging their feet. I finally got rid of it not wanting to wait any longer. But, I think if my experience with the Tamron is any guide, you'd be very happy with it.
 
Member's gallery
The Nikkor 105 Micro 2.8 is an incredible lens. I don't do a lot of macro work but I used one during one of Steve's Costa Rica workshops and was blown away with it's image quality. I'd say you can't go wrong with it as a choice; a good quality used one would be a great purchase.
 
Member's gallery
I have been using my D7500 (only camera body) for three years and have been very pleased with it's performance. About two years ago I was making the same decision between the Tamron and the Nikon. I finally decided on the Tamron 90 and have had a great time using it. It does the job for me. I've included a full body shot of a grasshopper to give you a better idea of how it performs. Good luck on your decision.
_DSC8195.jpg
You can only see EXIF info for this image if you are logged in.
 
Member's gallery
Thanks for the responses everyone and the great sample photos. I can't go wrong with either but it's still a tough decision with only a 99 cents difference.

I'm slightly leaning towards the 105 but mainly because I prefer to stick with Nikon glass for my Nikon body. I hope to make a decision sometime tomorrow so there's still time for some thinking.
 
Member's gallery
Like Mr. Goodkat, I have the d7500 and also looking for a macro lens. A couple of individuals have suggested that I consider Nikon's 85mm macro lens especially since it would be paired with a dx camera. Has anyone had any experience with this lens or thoughts as to the value of pairing a dx lens with a dx camera? Thanks,
 
Member's gallery
JimmieD said:
Like Mr. Goodkat, I have the d7500 and also looking for a macro lens. A couple of individuals have suggested that I consider Nikon's 85mm macro lens especially since it would be paired with a dx camera. Has anyone had any experience with this lens or thoughts as to the value of pairing a dx lens with a dx camera? Thanks,
Click to expand...
I've shot with Nikon's 85mm DX micro lens and it is indeed a very sharp piece of glass. The issue I have for nature macro work, especially for live subjects is it's just getting a bit short. IME, an ideal focal length for live subject macro work is around 200mm on a full frame camera like Nikon's classic 200mm f/4 micro lens which unfortunately has never been updated with an AF-S version (meaning features like automated focus stacking in supporting Nikon camera bodies doesn't work with that lens).

So yeah, the DX crop factor helps by giving the 85mm DX lens an equivalent field of view of roughly a 128mm lens but the 105mm micro lens would give you an equivalent field of view of roughly a 158mm lens on full frame getting closer to that sweet spot for live insects, butterflies and other living macro work. And according to Nikon the 105mm AF-S micro lens will work with a TC-14 iii teleconverter (contrary to Nikon's compatibility table I've had no AF troubles when using the 105mm micro + TC-14 iii combo) but the 85mm DX micro lens is not listed as compatible with the TC. IOW, the 105mm AF-S micro + TC-14 on a crop body camera is a killer macro combo giving better working distance for live subjects, easier lighting with that extra working distance and better ability to control distracting backgrounds with its narrower field of view.

If budget is tight and you can find a good deal on the 85mm DX macro it will certainly work and is a fine piece of optics but personally for live nature macro work I'd go with the 105mm micro lens and keep hoping Nikon might someday update their classic 200mm f/4 micro lens to support AF-S which really is an awesome lens for live subject macro work.
 
Member's gallery
I also had the 85mm DX macro when I shot DX, bought the lens when it was released. The price is not bad, but it depends on what you shoot. The 85mm is very sharp, like the rest of the macro lenses discussed here, but to be honest I’d get the 105 macro if I had known what I know now, and not just because I switched to FX later on. The 85 has some nasty CA, it’s worse than the 105, and the working distance of the 85mm macro is much closer. The extra weight isn’t a big deal and the VR is handy if you don’t have space around the subject to use a tripod. I liked the 85 DX macro for taking shots of circuit boards and flowers, but if you photograph insects, it’s almost too close at 1:1. Using the 105 with a 1.4x TC gives you even more working room, which is nice in tight spaces.

Another option, less expensive, is the 60mm macro. Working distance is very close, like the 85mm, but if you aren’t shooting insects it’s great. I liked it because it did a much better job at controlling CA. The long macros sometimes produce CA that you just cannot seem fix in post, it’s rare though.
 
Member's gallery
I might have waited too long and the 105 might be sold. I might go with the Tamron 90 after I confirm that the 105 is sold.

It sounds and looks like it's still a great option to go with.
 
Member's gallery
Well the 105 was sold so I shipped off the 18-140 for the Tamron. I've never had a Tamron so I figured a lens from the SP line would be a great way to try them.

A micro lens will be a great addition and I can't wait to start playing with it!
 
Member's gallery
Due to the nature of my photographic work I use mostly macros and have 3 of the Nikons the 60mm, 105mm and my ancient and sharpest the 200 micro. My go to is the 105 which is perfect in the field and Nikon image shifting using with a tripod & flash. 60mm great when you really want too get on top of your subject 1:1 at 6" with no extension.
The 200 is one of Nikon's sharpest lenses but unfortunately a D lens with pretty bad autofocus, so It's mostly in manual. I do use it occasionally for studio stacking using Helicon
remote plugged into the cameras usb port Only use this with the D850 or D5 since the software uses the autofocus-Not for the Z-series, You can't go wrong with the Nikon Micros
 
Member's gallery
I had an older Nikon 105 macro lens. When the Tamron SP90 came out I bought one to try and, for me, the Tamron was a better lens so I sold the Nikon 105. I was always pleased with the Tamron 90 until I bought my Z7 and was very disappointed that it wouldn't AF on the FTZ adapter, plus it made grinding noise in manual. Loke others mentioned I contacted Tamron service and got their standard "we're working on the firmware" story. It wasn't a major problem as I have several "F"-mount Nikons that I could easily use but it just bothered me that the lens wouldn't work on my new Z7. I just recently bought another Nikon 105 that indeed will work on the Z7+FTZ. The 105 is a decent lens but I still prefer the Tamron 90 photos so I'm hanging on to the Tamron with hope that a fix will come about but I'm thinking they will come out with a new macro and just forget the 90. I probably won't be interested in a new Z macro as I don't want to pay what they will sell them for and I already have a small shelf of "F" mount macros to choose from. So to sum it up I think the newest Nikon 105 2.8 seems sharp but with the Covid and the winter weather I haven't had much use for it. I think it's better than my old 105 2.8 and it will work on my Z camera. I still prefer the photos from the Tamron 90 f2.8 though.
 
Member's gallery
I recently bought the Tamron to get into macro. I also bought the Godox V860IIN flash and a AK diffuser to fit this rig. I took 15 shots hand-held of small spider under a web. I selected 4 and manually put the image below together. The following details should blow you away: Hand-held, manual focus at 1/15 sec, f16, ISO 400, and flash at 1/8 power. With the lens in manual I just moved minutely back and forth and used focus peaking. If any hint of red appeared on the spider - let her rip - again and again - as long as the spider remained in the same position. I got 15 frames and used 4. The gripped D850 can go at 9 frames per second, but with flash I popped them off one at a time. Should be amazing in good daylight using similar settings (faster shutter) and shooting at 9 fps ???? I could not believe the image stabilisation on the Tamron at 1/15 second. The Tamron 90mm (Model F017) is relatively new whereas the Nikon is getting on a bit. I spent a few months looking at macro during covid lock-down. Many good macro photographers recommended the gear that I mentioned above. I bought the lot and have no regrets.

Spider on web (Genus Steatoda?).jpg
You can only see EXIF info for this image if you are logged in.
 
Member's gallery
I have shot at smaller apertures and used flash with my macro lenses 100% of the time. My most used macro when I had the 60mm, 105mm, and 200mm ones from Nikon was the the 200mm f/4. I roughly go to the 60mm with a subject larger than a tennis ball and the 105mm with something the size of a golf ball. With small frogs and poisonous snakes in Costa Rica the 200mm was the lens to have.

For product photography the 24-70mm lens is my preference as I can crop in the camera and I am shooting with it at f/5.6 or smaller apertures.

With a DX camera only the center area of the FX lens is used and so the images are going to be sharper overall.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top